SRI LANKA: ICRC ROLE INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN,

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001059 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR PRM AND SCA/INSB; GENEVA FOR RMA; KATHMANDU FOR REFCOORD E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2019 TAGS: PGOV PREL PREF PHUM CE SUBJECT: SRI LANKA: ICRC ROLE INCREASINGLY UNCERTAIN, REHABILITATION ON HOLD Classified By: CHARGE D'AFFAIRES VALERIE C. FOWLER. REASONS: 1.4 (B, D ) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a November 12-16 visit to Sri Lanka on a range of post-conflict humanitarian issues, PRM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS) Sam Witten discussed the situation of LTTE ex-combatants (including rehabilitation programs) in separate meetings with Minister of Justice Milinda Moragoda; the International Organization for Migration (IOM); and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Significantly, despite many meetings and communiqus, the ICRC did not appear close to securing Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) support for its core protection mandate activities as of November 16, and thus its future presence in Sri Lanka appeared uncertain. The U.S. and other donors remain unwilling to support financially an IOM-led ex-combatant rehabilitation program without an ICRC protection monitoring presence in the centers, increasing the likelihood that the Government's rehabilitation program would not receive robust donor support. END SUMMARY. ICRC: NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUING -------------- ¶2. (C) On November 13, PRM PDAS Witten met with Paul Castella, ICRC Head of Delegation to Sri Lanka, who provided an update on efforts to negotiate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on continued ICRC operations in Sri Lanka. Castella noted that ICRC had outlined two areas it saw as core ICRC activities in Sri Lanka on which it was unwilling to compromise: 1) access to all places of detention throughout Sri Lanka, which is essential for ICRC investigations into disappearances and extrajudicial killings; and 2) access to prisons and ability to conduct visits. On August 25, ICRC submitted a framework document outlining its proposal for activities in the post-conflict period to the MFA. According to Castella, the Foreign Secretary responded to the framework submitted with a counterproposal that eliminated all references to international humanitarian law and ICRC mandates and which cut all protection-related activities. While the Foreign Secretary noted to ICRC that the protection part of its activities was "a problem for us", the Secretary of Defense Gotobaya Rajapaksa separately advised Castella that he had no issue with ICRC's protection mandate. It was unclear to ICRC whether this impasse could be resolved. ICRC noted that discussions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would continue the week of November 16. Castella said he would inform Ambassador Butenis of the outcome. ICRC was not currently seeking active U.S. advocacy on its behalf, but suggested it would be appropriate for the U.S. to "mention" the issue in its meetings. MORAGODA: ICRC IMPASSE AT A "POLITICAL LEVEL" -------------- ¶3. (C) PDAS Witten met with Minister of Justice Milinda Moragoda on November 15. The Justice Ministry oversees the Commissioner General for Rehabilitation, who is directly managing the rehabilitation effort. Moragoda repeated figures of some 11,000 separated ex-combatants in rehabilitation centers. Separately, 796 "hardcore" ex-combatants were being held under individual detention orders and would be prosecuted in the courts. PDAS Witten raised concern that ICRC and the Government had not reached a successful outcome that would permit ICRC monitoring access to the rehabilitation centers. In referring to donors' funding condition requiring ICRC access to rehabilitation centers, Moragoda noted, "the ICRC issue is becoming the biggest challenge for us." He cited his own efforts to advocate for ICRC within the Government, but said that the issue was "stuck" at a political level and would take time to navigate. Moragoda lauded IOM's approach, noting that they had been able to work successfully with the Government without becoming embroiled in political issues. Moragoda expressed strong concerns about the impact the ICRC issue would have on implementing the rehabilitation program. IOM: SOME ACCESS BETTER THAN NONE? -------------- ¶4. (C) On November 15, PDAS Witten met with IOM Chief of Mission Mohammed Abdiker and Deputy Chief of Mission Aurela Rincon. Abdiker detailed IOM's success in working fruitfully with the Government, particularly on the current large-scale returns of internally-displaced persons and with a rehabilitation program for some 1,000 ex-combatants/surrenderees in three sites in the East. IOM had been in discussions with the Government on replicating this program in the North, replete with ICRC access. Since early July 2009, however, ICRC had not had access to the Government's rehabilitation sites, and donors such as the United States had been reluctant to provide financial support for IOM's program in the North without ICRC monitoring. According to Abdiker, IOM was asking its Geneva office to decide whether, under the present circumstances, IOM should pull out of providing technical assistance for the rehabilitation centers. (NOTE: IOM also called a November 17 meeting with donors in Colombo, to be reported septel. END NOTE.) Abdiker and Rincon expressed their concern that if the ICRC issue were not resolved soon, IOM would not be able to support the rehabilitation centers, and therefore there would be no international involvement at all in the rehabilitation program. IOM reiterated Moragoda's comments that the ICRC impasse was at a political level, and would be difficult to overcome. IOM suggested ICRC consider other groups that could take on a monitoring function, such as Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) or the national Sri Lankan Red Cross Society. COMMENT -------------- ¶5. (C) PDAS Witten raised the importance of ICRC access at every appropriate opportunity during his November 12-16 visit. From all indications, there is a chasm between the ICRC's statement of core protection mandate activities and what activities the GSL is comfortable permitting. It is unlikely that this impasse will be resolved soon. While Post does not see any adequate replacement for ICRC in monitoring ex-combatant rehabilitation centers, it will continue to confer with ICRC and with other donors on the way forward. FOWLER